Karnataka High Court
Shri G G Sathyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5345/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SHRI G.G. SATHYANARAYANA,
AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O GOVINDA SHETTY G.V.,
R/AT NO.1613, 1ST CROSS,
DR. DVG ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR,
BANGARPET,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114.
2. SMT. VENKATARATHNAMMA,
AGED 59 YEARS,
W/O G.G. SATHYANARAYANA,
R/AT NO.1613, 1ST CROSS,
DR. DVG ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR,
BANGARPET,
KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PALLAVA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY WHITEFIELD P.S., WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 066.
REP BY THE LEARNED SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2
2. SMT. SHUBHA R.,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
D/O RAJAPPA J. S.,
NO.19/65, 9TH MAIN,
OPP. 3RD CROSS, SRIRAMANAGAR,
HONGASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
GAREBHAVIPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560068. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI G. B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AT ANNEXURE-A WHERE
THEY ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 RESPECTIVELY
ON THE FILE OF THE I ACJM, BANGALORE RURAL IN
C.C.NO.766/2019 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 498A OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P.ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying
this Court to quash C.C.No.766/2019 for the offences punishable
under Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that respondent
No.2/complainant filed a complaint against her husband and
these two petitioners, who are her in-laws, making the allegation
that after the marriage all of them joined together and subjected
her for both mental and physical harassment. The petitioners
also harassed her to get additional dowry from her parents.
Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case for
the offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC and Sections
3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The police after the
investigation have filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the present
petition is filed before this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit
that no specific date of harassment is mentioned in the
complaint and hence there cannot be any proceedings under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel would submit that
only due to vengeance and the allegation that her husband is
having extra marital relationship, these two petitioners have
been falsely implicated in the case.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of
his arguments relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of RASHMI CHOPRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ANOTHER reported in (2019) 15 SCC 357 and brought
to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.24 and 25 of the
judgments, wherein the Apex Court has observed that a perusal
of the complaint indicates that the allegations against the
appellants for the offences under Section 498A and Section 3
and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are general and sweeping. No
specific incident dates or details of any incident have been
mentioned in the complaint. There is no specific allegation
regarding any one of the applicants except common general
allegation against everyone i.e., "they started harassing the
daughter of the applicant demanding additional dowry of rupees
one crore". The sum and substance of the principles laid down
in the judgment is that when there is no specific allegation, if it
is general allegation, the Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
5. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of GEETA MEHROTRA AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in
MANU/SC/0895/2012 and brought to the notice of this Court
paragraph No.24 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court made
an observation that if the FIR as it stands does not disclose
specific allegation against accused more so against the co-
accused specially in a matter arising out of matrimonial
bickering, it would be clear abuse of the legal and judicial
process to mechanically send the named accused in the FIR to
undergo the trial unless of course the FIR discloses specific
allegations which would persuade the Court to take cognizance
of the offence alleged against the relatives of the main accused
who are prima facie not found to have indulged in physical and
mental torture of the complainant-wife.
6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that there is a
specific allegation in the complaint and also brought to the notice
of this Court that the owner of the premises in which the parties
are residing made the specific allegation against the petitioners
subjecting the complainant to both physical and mental
harassment. The learned High Court Government Pleader also
brought to the notice of this Court that the complainant also took
the treatment. He would submit that in the complaint, specific
allegation is made against these two petitioners and there
cannot be an order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Having heard the submissions of the respective
learned counsel and on perusal of the complaint dated
02.10.2018, the complaint discloses that marriage was
solemnized between the complainant and her husband on
16.11.2016 and thereafter she joined the matrimonial home. On
perusal of the complaint, a specific allegation is made against
these two petitioners that they were abusing the complainant
and also demanded money. They also abused her stating that
her parents have not given lakhs of rupees for their son to come
home regularly. It is also the specific allegation that they have
restrained their son from coming home till she gets the money.
8. Having perused the complaint, specific allegations
are made against these two petitioners. The police have also
investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. On perusal
of the charge-sheet, C.Ws.2 to 6 are the eye-witnesses to the
incident and the records also discloses the statement of
independent witnesses i.e., the owner of the premises. Having
perused the material available on record and when specific
allegations are made against these two petitioners, the very
principles laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the petitioners will not come to the aid of the
petitioners. The Court has to take note of the facts and
circumstances of each case. In the case on hand, though the
learned counsel for the petitioners disputes that they are not
living together, the material discloses that all of them were living
together. It is also the specific allegation that the complainant
was residing along with these two petitioners and they were
preventing their son from coming home regularly demanding
additional dowry. No doubt in the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, the Apex Court made an observation
that in the absence of specific date and if there is any general
allegation, then the Court can invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. But
in the case on hand, factual aspects are different and specific
allegation is made against these two petitioners that they are
not allowing the complainant to lead a peaceful life. It is also
the allegation that the husband is having extra marital
relationship and these petitioners are also supporting him and
preventing him from coming home regularly. When such being
the facts and circumstances of the case and when specific
allegation are made against these two petitioners, it is not a fit
case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The
disputed question has to be ascertained only during the course
of trial. The statement of the witnesses and the truthfulness of
the statements of the witnesses has to be tested in trial.
9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MD
